Hi bm0p700f, to ask a question, which area of physics and maths would you say that wheel building would be related to ...

This process must be quantifiable otherwise it is just hearsay, a mystical experience, and guess work at best ...

For example ... you have said that you really like the 16:8 2xDS 0xNDS arrangement, although you have not stated why? For the same rim and FTF spacing, do you prefer it to the 12:12 2xDS 2xNDS arrangement ...

I have not atated that I like the 16:8 arrangment I don't in fact I am not too sure where you got that from. A wheel is sturcture so mechanics is what is sed to analysis it. Wheels can be analayised mathematically but the maths is complex so the onlt things that are with the reach of most are lateral wheel stiffnes measurements.

The ranking you came up with tries to combine tension balance and spoke araganaged to come up with lateral stiffness ranking.

I do not know how to calcualte the lateral stiffness on a wheel but I don't have as spoc clac spits out the most important nmber for m, bracing angles. Good bracing angles are required and the high these are the better. That is pretty much it. That is all we need to quantify. It is not the sum of the bracing angles either just knowing the indivaual angles is enough. The reason why summing does not work is you can make a high bracing angle out of two equally sized ones (good for wheel) or on very small and one very large (not so good). Then by building different wheels and doing some as experiments to see if they even work you get a feel for what combinations work and what does not. So it "science" but alot of it is prior experience. You could say thay is the "art". It not a black one though.

Hi bm0p700f, re 16:8 arrangement, sorry for the mistake ... I guess that you do not like this arrangement, which is fine ... some do, some don't ... I do

Re: Bracing Angles, one thing that is often posted here is the need for wide/good FTF spacing ,,, the calculations/maths reflects and agrees with this, especially when used in conjunction with DS/NDS flange spoke circle diameter

Hey bm0p700f, re spoke tension affecting or not affecting lateral stiffness, I guess we will have to agree to disagree and continue with having fun with the art of wheelbuiding ...

Thank you for all the assistance you have afforded to me, appreciated ... thanks KL

What I most appreciate around this discussion forum is the civility. Exchanging viewpoints.. opinions and learning is my goal. And I've learned some things.........

The for-mentioned & pictured 18-10 I've built was re-laced NDS this morning.. heads in vs the heads out experiment first time around. Due to the wide elbow's of the Sapim Strong spokes I lost around 9+ kgf tension on the left.. but I believe by subjective testing the wheel is laterally stiffer. NDS tension is 70% of DS's 117 av kgf now.

Originally... laying this wheel on the padded table and applying pressure to the rim with care -- I rated it less stiff than a 32 H rear laced normally. The latter no inflated tire.. the 18-10 with tire mounted to 100 psi. Yet after repeating this admittedly very subjective test.. I am not sure. Suffice to say.. I do not believe the difference is large... if any. I think mounting a tire on the 32H and checking them both in dropouts with firm thumb pressure might be worth a trial. Riding them obviously the ideal.. but snow/salt season does not see my better components used.

KLabs- I'll trust a well designed actual experiment over a theory. Rinard is Cervelo's lead engineer and was Trek's. If you think his experiment gave incorrect results, why don't you try to replicate it? You can find pics of his test rig chucking a wheel into a milling machine if you search for them. Or you could do it with an old steel frame laid across a couple saw horses, and a dial indicator (but then there's some flex from the frame to consider).

I don't have much of an opinion of triplet lacing because I have not tried it myself. What little I know from reading and talking to Troy Watson, an experienced wheel builder who built a lot of triplet laced wheels, about it is that it works best with a hub designed for it, one that has a very wide NDS flange spacing. The only aftermarket hub I know that was designed for triplet were the ones designed by Troy a few years back. They're no longer made and I don't remember the maker.

... If you think his experiment gave incorrect results, why don't you try to replicate it?

I don't have much of an opinion of triplet lacing because I have not tried it myself. What little I know from reading and talking to Troy Watson, an experienced wheel builder who built a lot of triplet laced wheels, about it is that it works best with a hub designed for it, one that has a very wide NDS flange spacing. The only aftermarket hub I know that was designed for triplet were the ones designed by Troy a few years back. They're no longer made and I don't remember the maker.

Hi eric, as have I posted earlier, it is the method not the results that I consider incorrect.. The results appear to be correct for a Static test.As described the method used is a Static test and I believe that the method needs to be a Dynamic test, which of course is quite difficult to setup. I believe that the spoke tension/detension cycle needs to be included in the test (which results from rim and hub flex due to lateral, radial, and torque forces) which means the testing method needs to be Dynamic.. A spoke tension/detension cycle will not occur during a Static test, especially not as it occurs while riding

The maths I have posted, at least for me, allows me to determine how laterally stiff any wheel build that I do will be ... so for me that is sufficient ( and I have shared it ... ) I prefer to work with some form of maths and SpokeCalc does not provide me with enough information.. The process was still a little too touchy/feely for me ...

I will now have a look at a formula for effective Torsional stiffness (Effective Torque Control) ... this process is still a little too touchy/feely for me ...

Re triplet lacing, I agree completely that it works best with a hub designed specifically for it (such as wide FTF spacing, etc), but that is also the case with traditional 12-12, 14-14,16-16 arrangements, and for any arrangement.. The best hub for a particular arrangement must always be determined (mathematically) and we do not always have the privilege to use the best hub ( or do we ) ... thanks KL

The only aftermarket hub I know that was designed for triplet were the ones designed by Troy a few years back. They're no longer made and I don't remember the maker.

Hi Eric,

Can you remember if Troy's NDS hole drilling was conventional or a pattern specific to his hub? Goggled for it and can't find anything._________________

Ah the lateral stiffness can of worms.. a complex topic. Riding wheels to the limit is still the only real world method to compare them per stiffness.

If I was into testing wheels for stiffness.. which I am not.. I'd run this simple test. Lay the wheel on it's side.. onto something rigid like a truck rim. Load the wheel at the axle with weight and measure defection downward. Do both sides. Some computer type should be able to figure how much weight is the same effect as an elite rider powering a wheel to the max.

@leejdavies-I wouldn't recommend the radial lacing on the NDS of that build. I've done that before with a 340/T11 combo, and I had problems with the non drive side going slack. I think that a 2x NDS would be far more practical. For the front wheel, a radial build would be just fine. Keep in mind that front wheels are usually much stiffer than rears because they have even relative tensions, where as rear wheels have a significant tension offset. For the hole count, you won't notice any difference between 20h and 24h. On the rear though I think you should overbuild a tad and go with a 28 hole, at least.

Thanks for the tips Zen Cyclery. I don't think I'm too heavy on wheels, only broke 1 spoke in my cycling life but would rather have a ~30g heavier wheel over a broken one miles from home.

Has anyone ever heard of a rim having the mending section inside of the rim come loose? I recently purchased a set of Tune 70/170 hubs that were built by Fairwheel Bikes and the front Stans 340 rim has a weird noise internally. If you take the tire off of the rim and deflate and shake the rim in your hand back and forth you don't hear anything. If you mount a tire and inflate to 110psi, you can hear a noise exactly at the rim joint section. I took it to my LBS and they suspect when the rim was built, some rims have little pieces of the weld internally. Maybe that piece has come loose? There's no way to get it out of the rim and the sound is ridiculous when riding. I'm going to warranty it back to Stans, but just wanted to see if this is common with other rim manufactures.

I can post a youtube video later with the noise. Almost like the metal inside is sliding back and forth. I would love to see what's actually making the noise inside the rim.

so I called Stans and it's a simple fix. The joint/weld/mending section has a small plate that's help by glue apparently.All you have to do is remove a spoke and drop some Mastik in there and it holds the plate back in place. No more noise!

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum